I've tried supporting this model a couple of times. The nice thing about this model is it's risk-free for the company and is a small risk for an individual. The bad thing about this model is it's risk-free for the company and is a small risk for an individual.

I used to think this model was awesome and now I find it distasteful. If you want my money, you'd better have something playable when you ask for it, even if it's nowhere near where you'd like it to be. And yes, this is a general statement, not specifically directed at these developers (never even heard of their original game).

You're mad, get your ass to wherever they sell Nexus and buy it, it's like they made <insert your favourite space opera here>: the game!

1. I already explained why I don't like this sort of thing. I gave three reasons. I'll repeat those three reasons plus give a few more. Game might not come out. Game might not be good when it comes out. Game might technically be good, but just different than what customer originally thought and customer is uninterested in final product. No oversight over what is done with the money.

Many indie developers are in the same position, hundreds if not thousands of them. None of us have infinite money to invest in these video games, and it's better for you and every customer to only spend your money on finished, worthy products. This is more supportive of the industry because you are rewarding a company for releasing a game worth purchasing.

What developers should do is develop a product worth buying and then people can buy it which will support the developer's perpetuation. You are not on a team with these developers. They aren't on your side. This is business.

2. I don't know why you think "scheme" equals tin foil hat. That may be the connotation you associate with the word, but it isn't mine. This is almost a straw man on your part to bring that up, but probably not quite. It was an unnecessary jab either way...the kind of argument I expect people to make when they either can't or don't know how to just back up their argument with solid reasoning and/or explanation.

3. Asking for money like this is a standard, you're right...for investment plans. It is standard for organizations to ask investors to invest. The difference here is investors investing versus customers/consumers investing. Big difference. The former is far more "standard" than the latter. Even if this sort of thing was standard in the video game industry, that wouldn't justify it. It would still be ridiculous for all the reasons I'm listing.

4. Not sure why you made the last point about nobody being forced to do anything. I never suggested/implied/hinted at that, and it's irrelevant to my points and how I feel about the issue.

1. You're getting awfully worked up over what amount to a voluntary donation thing. :\

2. When I said tin foil hat I was only partially serious. Now i'm very serious. If you think(from what I read of your reply) this is some "scheme" setup be developers to bilk people out of money then you're just being paranoid(imo).

And i'm sorry if this offends but if you can't take an opposing opinion then I don't know what to tell you.

3. Again if people want to invest in game development then I don't see a problem with it. A. It's their money and their decision, B: It isn't your money to worry about or your decision to make for those investing, and C: It isn't ridiculous that's just your opinion.

4. The way you complain about it it makes it seem like you feel people are being duped out of their money or conned which isn't the case. And I said that last bit to show that no one is being forced to donate(and you in particular aren't) so you shouldn't worry about it so much.

da187jimmbones - you pre-ordered Sins of a Solar Empire 2 didn't you ;P

I don't know why you think I am worked up. You specifically asked me why I felt the way I felt, and so I explained it. I don't even think you're worked up about this, even though your posts come off as more emotional and less explanatory than mine. I was answering your question, literally. I understand other people have different opinions and of course I am fine with that.

I don't understand why you would think I'm not open to other opinions. If you think that of me, then read your post and see if you think that of yourself as well. I would never claim to be offended by anything, and I don't see what about my posts makes you think I'm unopen to the opinions of others. I also didn't even hint that I think this is some kind of scam to bilk money from people, and I explained that I wasn't invoking the same connotation as you for the word scheme.

I think you're just reading my posts completely wrong, as if you're interpreting everything I type in the most extreme, hostile, rude way I could possibly mean it, and as if I am intending to speak for everyone, instead of just giving my own opinion. I don't speak for other people. I know my opinion is only my opinion and no one elses. I like talking about this stuff and having good discussions. I'm not "worried about it." I enjoy these sorts of discussions usually when the other side argues substance instead of reading everything the wrong way in order to turn the conversation into a personal matter.

I don't mind responding to you to explain my point of view on all this, but in my opinion there was no reason to even bring any of this up besides the substantive points. It's only fun/interesting to me to talk about the issues.
I've been burned before, I'll say that much.

I think the best thing to do when reading someone else's post, is to imagine that person saying what they typed in a the most calm, polite way you can imagine. In other words, try to assume that the person is genuinely trying to be calm, nice, and friendly. And if the person says things like "that is ridiculous/stupid," or gives other opinions, assume they are speaking only for themselves as their opinion and no one else's, and that they would be/are tolerant of other peoples' opinions. That's what I do and it usually works for me and opens me up for some very good conversations.

I was reading it as neutrally as possible.......please stop trying to preach to me like i'm some sort of classless buffoon. ;)

I know all that and that isn't the matter here. The matter is you voiced your view on the matter at hand in a semi-outlandish fashion and I called it(albeit in a slightly crude manner). Simple as that.

Example:

You: This donation model is a scheme and it rips people off...etc etc.

Me: That's crazy....etc etc.

(Also you could've at least tried to respond to some of my post after I typed all that up. :\...)

GameRager umm your high horse you've just got on.... I dunno how to tell you this but it's not a horse... it's a donkey without legs.

My original point that his original point about donating to game devs. like this being ridiculous or some sort of scheme was silly to say the least is still valid regardless of how I present it, I would think.

To be honest I think such funding models can encourage some great games to be made, and to think such ways of funding games are ridiculous/not a good idea(considering the alternatives such as going to a big name publisher for money and the troubles that usually brings about.) is silly at best....and to call them a scheme(in not so many words) used by game devs. to bilk people out of more money is insane.

If one wants to donate then I say let them, if they don;t then they don't have to. No one is being forced to donate or gets into it not knowing what they're taking part in(basically a gamble with little info to go on and some screenshots and development info from the devs.), so I don't see the harm here or getting so worked up over the idea that people use this model or contribute to it.

To me, big paragraphs and long replies doesn't mean someone is worked up. I just like talking about stuff and discussing issues. Because I like to be accurate in what I say, this means that sometimes my posts are longer. What I do is assume that other people aren't worked up as well, unless they are openly hostile towards another poster, making the discussion personal. I just read others posts as calmly as I think mine should be read.

I did give reasons as to why I fell the way I fell, and I do think the model is easily debase-able. Like about how the game might not even be released, plus the other reasons. So with those reasons, I'm not sure how what I said was unfounded. If you don't think the reasons I listed are consistent with common sense, we can discuss it. I'd have to know specifically why you feel that way about each reason first though. In fact, our discussion should have started there, with that substantive issue, rather than going into all of these personal, and ultimately unrelated points.

I think I can explain this a little better this time around. When someone makes the argument that "it's just your opinion," then the only way I can see to fairly interpret what they mean by that argument is that when typing my post, that I intended to represent my opinion not as my opinion but as some kind of universal or objective fact. I didn't. Most people don't. It can be assumed that everyone is just speaking their opinion and only their opinion, or else we'd have to say "in my opinion" in front of every single sentence which is ridiculous.

About whether what I said seems bias or not, I could say that your posts seem a bit biased too, but how does that advance the conversation at all? It doesn't matter to me if you sound a little bias. This is why all of these things are pointless to discuss. With both of our opinions, it's more constructive and fun to just discuss the substance rather than who is biased, who is being rude, who is worked up, etc. These are personal, non substantive tangents.

I said something like "I'm not invoking the same connotation for the word scheme as you." So to be clear this time, I was using just the plain old dictionary definition for me.

I understand and believe you weren't trying to turn it into a personal matter, but this discussion has been 90% personal and 10% substance. In every heated opinion people give on the internet, you will be able to find a bunch of things to pick apart, as you have here. Unless they are relevant to the substance though, I don't see why anyone would do this. You can win arguments on the issues.

I was ready though, hence my long replies and this reply. My interpretation of all this is: "If I explain it to you, then I'm worked up and heated. If I'm not worked up and heated, then I wasn't ready to have my opinions picked apart." See how it's all personal...no substance...one personal thing to another no matter what the other person types.

If I take the time to write up long replies, it's because I'm hopeful that I will be able to find some common ground with the person I'm replying to. You can always find personal things to nitpick at in the other persons' reply. Beat them at the substantive issues of the discussion and the minor, tangent, non substantive, irrelevant points don't even matter, as if they ever did.
I typed that up while you were typing your reply. I didn't see your reply until after I had submitted that post.

That's right that your point is still valid regardless of how you present it. Just like my point, despite how outlandish it was presented, is still valid. This is why we should have continued to discuss substance and only substance.

I didn't mean scheme like that. I never implied devs were ripping people off. That is your interpretation and we're past that already since I explained that I didn't mean it like that. My opinion is silly, insane, outlandish, and yet you suggest I am the one intolerant of other peoples' opinions. See how this gets us no where. You and I could go back and forth all day. Humans can literally always think of another way to defend their beliefs.

1. I do the same usually(with regards to writing alot because I love to discuss things), interestingly enough. I also try to read things as neutrally as possible as well, unless someone is explicitly being crass/derogatory/etc.(Not saying you were perse, just pointing that out about myself.)

2. In most cases if the game isn't released the money is refunded, so that possibly shoots down that one point of yours. And by unfounded I meant unfounded to me/imo. And i'm not the only one who feels this way. The gamer donation model seems a good one to many people, otherwise it wouldn't get as much support despite such tough economic times, and again I think it's much better than some alternatives.

As for being personal.......c'mon was it really that personal? I've seen many people use those same words before.....and here on GOG no less. It wasn't meant to be a major personal jab or insult, but a crude yet blunt/clear way of expressing one's opinion about another's opinion quickly and without having to go into a full debate on the topic(to save time/etc....among other reasons.).

3. Again I know what you meant. When I say something is your opinion this is just me reiterating that point for effect & to further back up my points....not me saying I think you were talking for everyone or stating something as fact.

I agree on the part about bias being pointless to bring up now though. In my defense though I am posting to several threads and sites at once, and sometimes I don't express myself very clearly or misuse the wrong terms when trying to get my point across.

4. I mistook you to mean scheme as in dastardly type scheme when I guess you meant scheme as in plan/method/etc. I'm sorry about this bit of misunderstanding.

5. I could focus on the issues but sometimes I find it hard to for some reason.....(human nature perhaps...I dunno) and I believe I did in part in my first reply. I didn't mean for it to go this long though and as I said before i'm not into college level debating as i'm not interested in debating everything for long periods of time & i'm not good at expressing myself(I have good ideas and want to express them I just word them wrong sometimes and I could have a good point in a discussion, for example, but because I used the wrong terms or expressed myself the wrong way I turn out looking like an ass or dumb/etc so I tend to avoid long-winded debates if possible.). I like to just post my reply and be on my way in most cases to save time and face usually.

(I hope I even got this point across without messing it up somehow.)


It seemed that way to me from what you wrote and also because I mistook what you meant by scheme. Also yes you discussed that bit already but I replied to it before that realization fully hit me. For mistaking what you wrote on that bit I apologize.

BTW when did I say you were intolerant of other's opinions in that reply? I don't recall doing that. :\